Legal Opinion · Dissent

Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Ralph

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 31, 1994No. 92-250Published

1DissentThayer, J.

I would reverse the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest to the insureds. Although I agree with the plurality that the parties to an arbitration may consent to include interest as calculated by RSA 524:1-b (1974) in an arbitration award, see Major v. Acorn Investment Co., 134 N.H. 86, 90, 588 A.2d 811, 813 (1991), I disagree that Metropolitan can be bound to the terms of a private agreement to pay prejudgment interest to which it was not a party and which was entered without its knowledge.

The plurality concedes that while the Ralphs could be bound by collateral estoppel to the damages…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Brannigan v. UsitaloSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
  3. Providence Mutual Fire Insurance v. ScanlonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  4. National Grange Mutual Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1990
  5. Major v. Acorn Investment Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API